What’s the Cost to Society of Pollution? Trump Says Zero.

The White House has ordered federal agencies to stop considering economic damage to climate change when writing regulations, except in cases where the law “required it clearly.”

The effective directive applies a powerful tool that has used for more than two decades by the federal government so that the costs and benefits of a particular policy or regulation.

The Biden administration had used the tool to strengthen the limits in emissions of greenhouse gas, electric power plants, factories and oil refineries.

Known as the “social cost of carbon”, the metric reflects the estimated damage of global warming, including forest fires, floods and droughts. Adjusts a cost for the economy of a ton of carbon dioxide pollution, the main greenhouse gas that is heating the planet.

When considering a regulation or policy to limit carbon pollution, policy formulators have weighed the cost for a satisfaction industry that requirement against the economic impact of that pollution in society.

Duration The administration of Obama, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $ 42 per ton. Trump’s first administration lowered him to less than $ 5 per ton. According to the Biden administration, the cost was adjusted by inflation and increased to $ 190 per ton.

But “it is no longer a federal government policy to maintain a uniform estimate of the monetized impacts of greenhouse gas emissions,” wrote Jeffrey B. Clark, the interim administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the White House.

In his memorandum, Mr. Clark doubted the scientific consensus that the contamination of things such as transport and industry is heating the planet.

They argued that there were too many “uncertainties” when calculating the figure, including “if and to what extent the alleged changes in the climate are really occurring as a result of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Scientists and environmental groups say that the Trump administration is denying reality.

“It is very clear that climate change is causing Hars to people in the United States and worldwide, and that the thesis Hars worsens with the increase in warming,” said Robert E. Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. “By saying effective that the social cost of carbon should be treated as zero, this policy ignores and capriciously arbitrary and capriciously the science and economy of climate change.”

Michael Greenstone, an economist from the University of Chicago who came up with the idea of ​​the social cost of carbon as a justification for climatic policy, said that the new guide means “feelings, not made” would guide federal policy.

“The decision is like the Humpty Dumpty of Alicia in Wonderland, who said: ‘Words can mean what they choose that they mean,” said Greenstone. “So, yes, it is possible to have policies that assume that climate change will not have impacts, but that does not do so.”

The American Petroleum Institute, which presses on behalf of the oil and gas industry, has requested that “limit the application of the social cost of carbon” to the construction phase of certain oil and gas projects. Republican general prosecutors have fought against the social cost of carbon and described it as an assault on the industry.

This is because when the metric is used, the economic benefits of, for example, reducing car emissions or power plants, rise dramatically. The greater the estimation of the benefits, the greater the justification of the government to force the industries to reduce pollution.

“This number means that the government has a weapon that can use to justify the IT,” said Elizabeth Murrill, then Louisiana’s attorney general, in 2023 when the Biden administration increased its cost.

Richard L. Revesz, an expert in climate law who served as a regulatory head at the Biden administration, said the new policy would facilitate the Trump administration to collect climate regulations.

It is not clear if the environmental groups will demand that the administration not consider the social cost of carbon. But analysts said that the approval of projects, such as pipes or power plants, would probably face legal challenges because the administration did not take into account climate change.